For those who think that CEOs are compensated unfairly, I would ask a question about CEO's that built and own their company.
Someone builds their business, with their own capital, their own labor, their own intelligence, research, and risk. Their business is successful, so they are able to create jobs. No matter what they pay their employees, those are jobs that wouldn't exist without the CEO having built the business.
Anyway, to make things 'fair', let's say the CEO pays every employee at least $60,000/year, and pays himself $10 million/year. Is that unfair compensation? Does the CEO somehow not deserve to run his business as he sees fit?
As sole owner, he gets to pay himself whatever he wishes. If he is CEO of a publically held company he has a responsibility to the stockholders no matter who started the company. If his company accepted TARP or stimulus funds from the government, then we will need a whole new thread.
Given the very mild example I would consider it fine but distasteful. The point is this though:
#1 CEO's in the US are paid much more than CEO's anywhere else.
#2 The real problem is that most CEO's/owners are just a drain on the company and the working class, when for example in Argentina workers seized the businesses without owners, supervisors and CEOs the profits and productivity went way up and their wages went way way up, productivity because everyone was now working for themselves and their partners for equal profit share and wages because they no longer had to pay the owner/CEO and all the supervisors and managers he hired to ensure they worked because all those wages ultimately come out of the profits created by the people actually producing.
#3 What else went way up without owners/CEOs and supervisors? Workplace satisfaction, getting pushed around insulted and denigrated is common for many working people and is part of the supervisory tactics of many bosses when that is no longer there the people working are happier.
So to answer your question, Is there anything wrong with CEOs making more than their employees? No they are getting return on investment but there has to be a point where that becomes excessive and a point where the owner/CEO's hold on the business should be broken, when should that happen? I don't know. Obviously the best alternative is to move away from enterprise created by owner investment because it's inefficient and makes life less pleasant for the population.
by LAURENS WRIGHT5 years ago
Would the CEO's of Nuclear Reactors have depleted uranium put in bombs to eliminate the waste?Depleted uranium is a very toxic metal containing radioactivity. Being that some sites are closing down, that at one...
by Credence22 years ago
For the rest of the story see the following link:http://www.salon.com/2015/06/13/the_ins … r_partner/The case is being made that the Conservatives praise of the free-market is just so much crap.We need more...
by My Esoteric4 years ago
This was a conversation that started when talking about expanded Medicaid, but a CNN article prompted me to bring it up here. New Jersey is enforcing a ban on the high-end electric car manufacturer Tesla, in the...
by ptosis12 months ago
by PrettyPanther6 years ago
I recently quit my job working for a company that was engaging in practices that are perfectly legal in this state (but not in some other states), but that take advantage of the poor. The owners were raking in...
by Kenna McHugh3 years ago
What is a better than average salary for CEO's personal assistant, handling other important tasks?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.